M - Voice For The Defense Online

VOICE for the defense
entitled Landrigan to relief because he had indeed instructed
his counsel not to present such evidence. Landrigan then
filed a federal habeas petition which the district court
rejected. Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, finding
that Landrigan’s counsel fell below the standard required
under Strickland v. Washington.
own safety they are acting within constitutional limits.
Cert. to 8th Circuit – Dismissed
Petition dismissed as improvidently granted.
Roper v. Weaver, __U.S__, 127 S. Ct. 2022 (2007); Opinion:
Per curiam (6-3)
:: sDR
Held: The district court may refuse an evidentiary
hearing as a result of a federal habeas petition made by a
defendant who declined to present mitigating evidence
at the sentencing hearing while claiming to “bring on the
death penalty.” Supremes found the district court was within
its discretion to deny Landrigan an evidentiary hearing. In
deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal
court must consider whether the hearing could enable an
applicant to prove the petition’s factual allegations, which,
if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief. If
the record refutes the applicant’s factual allegations, a district
court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing. The
Court found that even if Landrigan was granted a hearing,
the fact that he had refused to submit mitigating evidence
at the sentencing hearing would prevent him being entitled
to habeas relief.
Cert. to 9th Circuit – Reversed (civil case)
No problem when cops searched naked people at gunpoint
pursuant to warrant
Los Angeles County, California v. Rettele, __U.S.__, 127 S.Ct.
1989 (2007); Opinion: Per curiam
Police got a valid warrant to search the premises of two houses
in Lancaster, California in order to aid in the investigation of
an identity-theft crime ring and attempt to locate four known
African-American suspects. When police entered the first
house, they discovered and searched two nude people of the
Caucasian race. The search lasted for approximately three
minutes. Respondents here claim that this search amounted to
a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from
unreasonable search and seizure. California federal district
court granted summary judgment to all the defendants, but
the 9th Circuit reversed, reasoning the officers violated the
Fourth Amendment because a reasonable officer would have
stopped searching the suspects upon realization that they
were not the same race as their intended suspects.
Held: Respondents had no constitutional claim for relief
where officers entered into their residence executing
a valid search warrant, even though they were clearly
not the suspects the police were seeking. Court rejects
respondents’ argument that the search in question was
unreasonable because there were no African-Americans
living on the premises and they were ordered out of bed naked
and held at gunpoint. The search was not a violation of the
Fourth Amendment. When the searching officers execute a
valid warrant in a reasonable manner and with respect to their
Weaver was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in
1988. He filed a federal habeas corpus petition before the
effective date of the AEDPA of 1996. The Montana district
court dismissed Weaver’s habeas corpus petition without
prejudice after he filed a petition for certiorari regarding
denial of the state court’s post-conviction hearing because
the court mistakenly believed this demonstrated that Weaver
had not exhausted his other remedies. After “exhausting”
those remedies, he re-filed his federal habeas petition. The
district court granted his writ and the Eighth Circuit affirmed,
concluding that the stricter standard of AEDPA applied, but
granting Weaver’s petition for habeas corpus despite that
stricter standard.
Held: The writ of certiorari was improvidently granted
where considering the case would lead to “virtually
identically situated litigants…being treated in needlessly
disparate manner.” The Supreme Court initially granted the
state’s petition to decide whether the 8th Circuit had properly
applied the AEDPA. However, upon realizing that Weaver’s
co-defendant and another similarly situated individual had
been granted writs of habeas corpus, and that the only reason
Weaver’s application had been applied for after the AEDPA’s
effective date was due to an error of the district court, the
Supremes held it had improvidently granted cert, and case
is therefore dismissed.
FIFTH CIRCUIT
Court need give no notice to sua sponte impose nonguidelines
sentence
United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2007)
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
sentencing court is not required to provide pre-sentencing
notice of its sua sponte intention to impose a non-Guideline
sentence (i.e., a Booker variance from the Guidelines, as
opposed to a Guidelines-based departure); Burns v. United
States, 501 U.S. 129 (1991), and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h), which
require notice before departures from the Guidelines are
inapplicable to post-Booker sentences at variance with the
Guidelines. (Court noted a circuit split with the 2nd, 4th,
9th, and 10th Circuits.)
Officers could rely on “consent” even though defendant
denied consent to search
United States v. Dilley, 480 F.3d 713 (5 th Cir. 2007)
33 |